What everyone really needs to know about photography

Photography is FUN.

 

Now, that you apparently want to learn it, there are pitfalls that must truly be understood.

 

The industry creating all of these new products to buy only has one interest in mind. Make money by making you think that you need to buy things everytime a new product is released.

 

 

No one wants to help you break into photography as anything except "i take pictures for fun".

 

 

Yeah, the photography market is over saturated. The supply exceeds the demand. The only thing that established people with photographic business's want from a new person who wants to learn photography is to SELL you things that always keep you "learning" and leave you behind.

 

Most "professional photographers" are making most of their income from selling you educational videos online, and offering 20$ a month mentoring programs like Edelman does. They have no interest in making you a competitor. Only in making you a customer.

 

 

There may be "subspecialties" in photography, but all skills are the same

Its easy to go and find 20 different courses for sale at 90$ each about product photography, budiour photography, glamour photography, and standard portrait photography.

 

The sad part is the ONLY one that has actual specific techniques is PRODUCT PHOTOGRAPHY. Everything else uses the same basic photographic theory, and please ask yourself this.

 

How can there be actual differences/requirements to a shoot simply because there is a difference in clothing?

 

How to set up your studio for portrait photography

 

look at those studio set up photos, tell yourself why would you need a different skill set to take those photos simply because in one "sub field" the model is wearing a corset and thigh high stockings, and in the other a swim suit, and in another pants and t shirt?

 

Nothing changes except MIND SET

A rather jaundiced view, IMO, People with skills, business sense and drive can succeed at most things they apply themselves to.

There may be "subspecialties" in photography, but all skills are the same

Its easy to go and find 20 different courses for sale at 90$ each about product photography, budiour photography, glamour photography, and standard portrait photography.

 

The sad part is the ONLY one that has actual specific techniques is PRODUCT PHOTOGRAPHY. Everything else uses the same basic photographic theory, and please ask yourself this...

 

Hang on there... "all skills the same"? And "the ONLY one that has actual specific techniques is PRODUCT PHOTOGRAPHY." ? Now, if you were to define "skills" strictly as: ability to set up a camera, ability to set up basic lighting (If even needed), and ability to get a "correct" exposure, then I'd probably agree with you. But otherwise, no.

 

Having spent my entire adult work life in photography, I like to think I have some insight. Let's consider just portrait photography (whatever that actually is). In my younger days I spent some time doing what I would call high-volume mass market portraits in a traveling operation. This was a time when high-quality color portraits were fairly scarce (or expensive), so people were willing to wait in line for same. I shot probably 40,000 to 50,000 individuals during that time, pushing around a specialized long-roll portrait camera, 70mm film, with a 4-light studio flash system.

 

From this background I can assure you that very different skills are needed to photograph, say, a 3 month old infant, vs a two year old, vs ten years, vs an adult, etc. And one will definitely not develop these skills, to a substantial extent, from an online course. In our operation, the training period was roughly 3 months, full-time, traveling with a very experienced person, one specialized in training. They would gradually work the newbie up to more and more difficult situations, frequently assisting and demonstrating, and sometimes painful critique during lulls. The so-called newbie, on their own after this training, was barely adequate, and would initially be assigned to only low-volume locations, gradually building up their skills.

 

The most difficult thing in this sort of photography was to quickly make a connection with the subject, a raport, if you will, to get good expressions, not the artificial smiles most people learn to put on. Now granted, this sort of skill is seldom necessary today, as the photographer is frequently free to take as long as needed. Or, there's always tomorrow, maybe your kid will be better behaved tomorrow? Hard to make a living, though, working so slowly. You've gotta get more money from each customer.

 

How about a wedding photographer? Can a portrait photographer step right in and shoot weddings? Again, this is a different skill set. The people skills are still useful, but now one is shooting under a wide variety of conditions. And there is a series of "must have" shots, some of which the photographer must set up. So a portrait photographer, one having some "available light" skills, could likely step into wedding photography after perhaps a handful of "guided" weddings with an experienced wedding shooter. If they are willing to deal with the stress of it being a one-time event. And they have some sort of aesthetic sense to find interesting locations, as well as setup, for the group shots, and that sort of thing.

 

Do you still think the skills, or techniques, are all the same?

The sad part is the ONLY one that has actual specific techniques is PRODUCT PHOTOGRAPHY. Everything else uses the same basic photographic theory,

 

Rubbish.

 

Field macro requires very different skills from studio macro, and both require very different skills from night photography, and all three require very different skills from candid portrait photography.... and those are just a few of of the types of photography I do.

 

One reason I don't do studio portaits is that in learning all of these other genres, I never learned enough about studio lighting to be a competent studio portrait photographer.

 

And, I can tell you from personal experience, none of the genres I've learned reasonably well have prepared me to photograph athletic events. I've photographed a number of marathons, and I suck at it. I've done one wedding, and I'll never do another. I don't compose and set up fast enough, and I find the tension of having to do it right very unpleasant.

 

and so on.

People with skills, business sense and drive can succeed at most things they apply themselves to.

 

I was inclined to add a condition to this, that the thing the apply themselves to must be somewhat feasible. But I guess you sorta covered that by referring to people with "business sense." Such a person is not likely to enter into things that are fundamentally dumb, meaning with a high likelihood of failure.

 

So I'd guess, for example, that even with good skills and plenty of drive, a person with "business sense" is not likely to try starting a wedding photography business in a place that is already oversaturated. At least not with the expectation of making a living from it right away.

There may be something akin to innate talent that helps. It may not be necessary for professional or even non-professional success (whatever success is), but it may be necessary to a photographer who wants more than commercial or "recognized" success. Learning is important and I've been learning and will continue to learn, hopefully, throughout my life. But I think some things can't be learned. Those things come through both genetics and other forms of experience besides what gains you skill, drive, and sense.

I've done one wedding, and I'll never do another. I don't compose and set up fast enough, and I find the tension of having to do it right very unpleasant.

 

It's kind of understandable that, on your first/only wedding, you'd be under a lot of tension. I gotta confess, though, I don't get how you even got in that position. I'm sure you had your reasons; just saying this probably had a lot to do with the pressure you were under.

LOL

A rather jaundiced view, IMO, People with skills, business sense and drive can succeed at most things they apply themselves to.

, then explain why most of your camera company brand ambassadors make 80% or more of their yearly income from selling educational courses online instead of doing actual photo shooting for pay?

LOL

 

, then explain why most of your camera company brand ambassadors make 80% or more of their yearly income from selling educational courses online instead of doing actual photo shooting for pay?

Because they are not professional photographers and enough people want to increase their skills for these 'ambasadors' to make a living promoting brands, even though they teach very little of value.

LOL

 

, then explain why most of your camera company brand ambassadors make 80% or more of their yearly income from selling educational courses online instead of doing actual photo shooting for pay?

Have no idea, have no particular interest in any of them. How an individual makes a living, as long as it is within the law and does no harm is not my business.

Have no idea, have no particular interest in any of them. How an individual makes a living, as long as it is within the law and does no harm is not my business.

 

 

Cant see the irony and fault in the classic "buy these classes from me and youll become a successful wealthy professional photographer", that the classes are the only real reason said successful, wealthy, professional photographer can pay the light bill and make they can get canned cat food and crackers?

Teachers teach and get paid for teaching. Photographers photograph and get paid for photographing. Seems pretty basic. Teaching and photography are different skills.

Teachers teach and get paid for teaching. Photographers photograph and get paid for photographing. Seems pretty basic. Teaching and photography are different skills.

Not necessarily separate. On the contrary: a good teacher posesses both.

The old 'those who can do, those who can't teach' only applies to those who can't do both.

Teachers teach and get paid for teaching. Photographers photograph and get paid for photographing. Seems pretty basic. Teaching and photography are different skills.

 

As someone who has taught at almost every level from elementary school to graduate programs and who has taught a fair number of photography classes, I find this stereotyping extremely annoying. It certainly is true that teaching requires skills that photography doesn't require. But this blanket assertion that one can teach a skill one doesn't have is baseless nonsense.

 

If you actually watch good teaching of photography online, you should notice that the teachers are actually doing in real time what they are teaching you to do. Hard to do that if you don't have the skills in the first place.

But this blanket assertion that one can teach a skill one doesn't have is baseless nonsense.

Your teaching of photography, however, hasn't helped your reading comprehension. I said teaching and photography are different skills. I did not say they exclude each other. I certainly did not say one can teach a skill one cannot have. I was trying to communicate something very similar to what you've said: "It certainly is true that teaching requires skills that photography doesn't require." This was in response to tommy's silly cynical view of photography classes.

 

I have had great teachers in various fields of all kinds and know a bunch of teachers personally. I have the utmost respect for teachers and the skill, patience, and dedication it takes to be one.

 

Once again for clarity, the skills it takes to teach and the skills it takes to photograph are different. A teacher should have both. Two different skills get combined.

As someone who has taught at almost every level from elementary school to graduate programs and who has taught a fair number of photography classes, I find this stereotyping extremely annoying. It certainly is true that teaching requires skills that photography doesn't require. But this blanket assertion that one can teach a skill one doesn't have is baseless nonsense.

 

If you actually watch good teaching of photography online, you should notice that the teachers are actually doing in real time what they are teaching you to do. Hard to do that if you don't have the skills in the first place.

 

 

I once read the results of a study that declared 70% of people TEACHING a subject wether it be elementary school highschool or in a college, would not meet basic requirements to actually pass the classes they teach if the teachers handbook with all the answers was taken away.

 

I have seen it myself over the years. Far to many COLLEGE courses I have had to take that were literally taught by people who had a teaching certificate in my state, but somehow ended up being the high school shop teacher teaching a bachelor degree architecture course on HVAC systems and fire protection systems.

I once read the results of a study

And why do I have a feeling you can't cite or post a link to that study? Talk is cheap.

 

So is anecdotal experience in making a general claim. So, as to your experience, mine is the opposite. I've been taught at three different respected universities. Back when they were affordable! There were a couple of teachers I didn't like but none I thought were unqualified. Not one. So your anecdotal experience and my anecdotal experience together tells us nothing about the teaching profession in general. Several courses in logic over the years were of value.

An exceptional teacher posses both

As fas as exceptional teachers are good teachers, yes. But it applies to all good teachers. Not just the exceptional ones.

Cant see the irony and fault in the classic "buy these classes from me and youll become a successful wealthy professional photographer", that the classes are the only real reason said successful, wealthy, professional photographer can pay the light bill and make they can get canned cat food and crackers?

How about those guys who sell real estate courses and how to make money from the stock market? If they're so good at it, why teach?

How about those guys who sell real estate courses and how to make money from the stock market? If they're so good at it, why teach?

There are scammers in every field. The intelligent consumer will know the difference between a good teacher and an Internet scam. The naive consumer may very well get burned.

 

What else is new?